ecount_get_inventory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides a rate limit (1 request per second), an explicit response structure (date, prodCode, warehouseCode, inventory array with PROD_CD and BAL_QTY), and behavior when whCode is omitted. It does not mention any error conditions or permission requirements, but for a read operation this is solid coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise: three sentences plus two brief bracketed notes. It delivers the purpose, required parameters, optional behavior, rate limit, and response format without any filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-item read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: how to call, what the optional parameter does, the rate limit, and the exact response shape. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing empty-result behavior or error cases, but overall it is quite complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description repeats the required nature of baseDate/prodCode and the whCode optional behavior, adding little beyond the schema. The provided response format is helpful but not parameter-specific.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states '재고현황 단건 조회' (single inventory status inquiry) and specifies that it retrieves inventory quantity for a specific item on a specific date. This verb+resource pairing and '단건' (single) distinction effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like ecount_get_inventory_list or ecount_get_inventory_by_warehouse.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context by marking baseDate and prodCode as required and explaining how whCode changes the result (specific warehouse vs. all-warehouse total). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over the list/warehouse variants, leaving out exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.